Illyrians are the ancestors of the Albanians?

[kestutisturbo]

Originally Posted by ScutariShkoder

proof:
origin of the Albanians: Information from Answers.com


Even our names are ILLYRIAN:
Agron
Arben
Teuta
Gentian(a)
Ardian(a)
Yllka
Gertian
Shkelzen
Madena
Arion
Bardhyll
Ilir(iana)
Alban(a)
Dardan
Ylber

What about todays spreading of these names ( Ilir(iana) - how many)?

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by kestutisturbo

What about todays spreading of these names ( Ilir(iana) - how many)?

I'd say that the use of these names is the same when Hungarians name their children Attila. Just as Hungarians (Magyars) are connected to Huns so are Albanians to Illyrians. In other words there is no connection save for propaganda and baseless theories.

[Occidentian]

Originally Posted by ScutariShkoder

It has been repeatedly and constanty proven by non-biased(non-Albanian,non-Macedonian,non-Greek,non-Serb)that Albanians are indeed Illyrians. Now, Im not saying were direct-descendant pure Illyrians but you cant deny that the vast majority of Albanians are predominately Illyrian. Our proper name is ARBERIA, an Illyrian word. The Albanians of Southern Italy who escaped prior to the arrival of Turks during the 1400s in order to maintain their christian religion are called Arberesh. Albanians call ourselves SHQIPTARES as in people of the eagle. The term Albanians originates from the Illyrian tribe Albanoi who occupied what is now Central Albania. Overall Albanians are a mix of Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, and Pelasgian.

proof:
origin of the Albanians: Information from Answers.com

"In the 2nd Century BC, the History of the World written by Polybius, mentions a city named Arbon in present day central Albania. The people who lived there were called Arbanios and Arbanitai.In the 1st Century ADAD, Pliny mentions an Illyrian tribe named Olbonenses.In the 2nd century AD, Ptolmey the geographer and astronomer from Alexandria, drafted a map of remarkable significance for the history of Illyria. This map shows the city of Albanopolis (located south of Durres). Ptolemy also mentions the Illyrian tribe named Albanoi, who lived around this city."


Illyrian--Albanian

ren -- re
dard--dardhë
toka--tokë
las--lesh
mal--mal
vasa--vashë
ves--vesh
cuza-cucë
nat--natë
ara--arrë
frim--frymë
ra--ra
caj--qaj
nis-nis
roj--rroj
leh--lind (lehem in Geg)
venedi--vendi
hyll--yll
bardi-bardhë
fimia-fëmijë
lissius-lisi

Even our names are ILLYRIAN:
Agron
Arben
Teuta
Gentian(a)
Ardian(a)
Yllka
Gertian
Shkelzen
Madena
Arion
Bardhyll
Ilir(iana)
Alban(a)
Dardan
Ylber

If you would like to contradict this with some facts [edit: unnecessary comment deleted] about how some place in Azerbijistan(sp?) or Scotland is called Albania, lets hear it, Modern Albanian is an Indo-European language. The Udi language, which is believed to be the modern descendant of the language of the ancient caucasian Albanians, is a caucasian language, so that theory goes out the window.

Overall its undeniable that Albanians are descendants of the ancient Illyrians.

I am part Arbëreshë, with my genealogical history of that branch of my family going back roughly 700 years.

Within those records, there is no Slavic, Turk, Chechen or any other regional influence, beside potentially Greek, in all of those years being there.

I cannot verify the Turkish influence, given the fact that the branch of my family from there left Albania when Skanderbeg was killed, of which they were isolated in Italy from there on out, but to that point there was absolutely no other influence.

But, if you want proof, have the DNA talk. Enough analysis will prove whether or not they were strongly connected, and talk of the Albanoi is true or not.

Based on my understanding, i'd hedge a bet it is.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Occidentian

But, if you want proof, have the DNA talk. Enough analysis will prove whether or not they were strongly connected, and talk of the Albanoi is true or not.

Based on my understanding, i'd hedge a bet it is.

DNA analysis can't prove anything of the sort.

[Occidentian]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

DNA analysis can't prove anything of the sort.

Right.

If you have the raw DNA of Illyrians and the raw DNA of modern Albanians how is that not possible?

Please, I want to hear this.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Occidentian

Right.

If you have the raw DNA of Illyrians and the raw DNA of modern Albanians how is that not possible?

Please, I want to hear this.

You're mistaken if you think that Illyrians shared the common Y-DNA marker. That would mean that they were genetically homogenous, and that's highly unlikely due the fact that ancient Greeks used the term "Illyrian" for every non Hellenic tribe/people north of them(from Epirus to Danube). The fact is that not only Illyrians inhabited that region, so there was probably a number of genetic markers on that certain territory and every comparison between ancient Illyrians and today's Albanians would be unreliable to say the least.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Occidentian

Right.

If you have the raw DNA of Illyrians and the raw DNA of modern Albanians how is that not possible?

Please, I want to hear this.

There is no raw DNA of Illyrians and especially not of Albanians. We are talking about Y-chromosome markers, mutations that have developed over thousands of years, more correctly some 15-40 thousand years. Obviously the idea of Illyrians wasn't even born at that time, not to mention of Albanians or any other modern nation/ethnic group.





However you have mixed up something. You obviously heard about association of some haplogroups with certain meta-ethnic (culutural) groups. They are commonly called "culture carriers". So it is presumed that the Slavic culture (East Europe) carriers were on general people who had the R1a Y-chromosome haplgroup/mutation. R1b Celtic-Latin (West European), I1a Germanic (Nordic) people, I1b Dinaric (among others Illyrians), E3b near East neolithic farmers (from Black Sea region), J2 Middle-Eastern/North African marker (most common among Semitic populations such as Arabs), etc. I am ranting now but this is the only way I can explain this for you to understand.

Albanians from Albania: 27% E3b, I1b 17%, J2 14,5%, R1b 17,5% and R1a 10%.

Kosovo Albanians: 45% E3b, I1b 2,7%, J2 17%, R1b 21% and R1a 4,5%.

On the other side among South Slavic populations I1b is the most dominant haplogroup, namely among Croats.

Croats (from Croatia): different studies showed the percentage varies from 32% up to 44%. Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina have 71% which is a peak of this haplgroup in any genetic study. It could be that Croats from Dalmatia have even higher % but they were not dealt with separately. Croats as an ethnic group (both Croatia an Bosnia-Herzegovina) have 50,5% of I1b markers. About 49% of I haplogroup in general only in Croatia (I, I1b, I1a, I1c).

Bosnian Muslims have it about 43,5% while Serbs are at 29% in Serbia and 31% in Bosnia-Herzegovina.



This map of the spread of I1b also correponds perfectly with the ethnic territory of Croats in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Croats (orange) in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovnina:



In the end I would like to point out that these studies cannot prove who is Albanian, Croat, French or Italian. It only shows how the people moved through thousands of years. It can also be indicative for ancient peoples such as Illyrians, Slavs, Celts and so on but is nowhere near being definite.

[Occidentian]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

There is no raw DNA of Illyrians and especially not of Albanians. We are talking about Y-chromosome markers, mutations that have developed over thousands of years, more correctly some 15-40 thousand years. Obviously the idea of Illyrians wasn't even born at that time, not to mention of Albanians or any other modern nation/ethnic group.





However you have mixed up something. You obviously heard about association of some haplogroups with certain meta-ethnic (culutural) groups. They are commonly called "culture carriers". So it is presumed that the Slavic culture (East Europe) carriers were on general people who had the R1a Y-chromosome haplgroup/mutation. R1b Celtic-Latin (West European), I1a Germanic (Nordic) people, I1b Dinaric (among others Illyrians), E3b near East neolithic farmers (from Black Sea region), J2 Middle-Eastern/North African marker (most common among Semitic populations such as Arabs), etc. I am ranting now but this is the only way I can explain this for you to understand.

Albanians from Albania: 27% E3b, I1b 17%, J2 14,5%, R1b 17,5% and R1a 10%.

Kosovo Albanians: 45% E3b, I1b 2,7%, J2 17%, R1b 21% and R1a 4,5%.

On the other side among South Slavic populations I1b is the most dominant haplogroup, namely among Croats.

Croats (from Croatia): different studies showed the percentage varies from 32% up to 44%. Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina have 71% which is a peak of this haplgroup in any genetic study. It could be that Croats from Dalmatia have even higher % but they were not dealt with separately. Croats as an ethnic group (both Croatia an Bosnia-Herzegovina) have somewhere around 45% of I1b markers. And about 49% of I haplogroup in general.

Bosnian Muslims have it about 43,5% while Serbs are at 29% in Serbia and 31% in Bosnia-Herzegovina.



This map of the spread of I1b also correponds perfectly with the ethnic territory of Croats in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Croats (orange) in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovnina:



In the end I would like to point out that these studies cannot prove who is Albanian, Croat, French or Italian. It only shows how the people moved through thousands of years. It can also be indicative for ancient peoples such as Illyrians, Slavs, Celts and so on but is nowhere near being definite.

Ok, so essentially, the mutations took over a longer period of time than their existence, therefore making it difficult/impossible. to prove.

Fair enough.

I do have to say that some of this migration is a bit exaggerated. If my family (again, a branch, and a small one at that - 1/8th) didn't move, outside of being forced by the Ottoman Turks, over 700 years, why would I presume that people just freeflow moved everywhere? It makes no sense.

Also, you say the Croat concentrations correspond where they were located, thereby making an ethnic link, so to speak, but that doesn't apply to other groups.

I'm getting the feeling you have a bias against Albanians, as many people from the Balkans do - but feel free to prove me wrong on that.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Occidentian

Ok, so essentially, the mutations took over a longer period of time than their existence, therefore making it difficult/impossible. to prove.

No, what I am saying is that the mutations occured way before any concept of what we today consider meta-ethnic groups formed (such as Slavs, Germanic people, Celts) . With this in mind it is ridiculous to connect these haplogroups with any modern nation or ethnic group. Some 25 000 years ago when the I1b* haplogroup formed (mutation) these people had no identity (we refer to them as 'Gravettian culture'). However it is quite possible, highly probable even that the carriers of this I1b* and the descedants of 'Gravettian culture' people were the people to whom the ancient Greeks refered as to 'Illyrians', actually I would say we are 99% sure.

I do have to say that some of this migration is a bit exaggerated. If my family (again, a branch, and a small one at that - 1/8th) didn't move, outside of being forced by the Ottoman Turks, over 700 years, why would I presume that people just freeflow moved everywhere? It makes no sense.

What do you mean exaggerated? These are genetic studies, there are no mistakes here. Also you must know that there were no huge migrations, it has been proven by these studies. If it proved anything it is that most of Europeans stayed exactly where they are today - in Europe. People spread in small groups from south to the north after the last glacial period (Haplogroups R and I) and populated Europe. Others immigrated from Middle-East and settled mostly in the Mediterranean region.

Also, you say the Croat concentrations correspond where they were located, thereby making an ethnic link, so to speak, but that doesn't apply to other groups.

Erm...there is no ethnic link. I have just pointed out that Croats have the highest percentage of I1b* in Europe and are in fact in the focal point of this haplogroup. This means only one thing - Croats assimilated autochtonous population and the majority of Croats today are descendants of the people who lived in the Dinaric Alps for thousands of years. Other half are people who spread from the northeast and southwest (R haplgroup) into the central european plain. Some small number are descedants of the other Mediterranean/Middle-Eastern populations, mainly on islands which were colonized by the old Greeks and other mariners from the antiquity.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Occidentian

Ok, so essentially, the mutations took over a longer period of time than their existence, therefore making it difficult/impossible. to prove.

True. Those haplogroups(mutations) are thousands of years old. Namely R1b is 45 000 yrs old, and at that time there were only primitive communities and tribes. The terms like "nation" and "folk" were introduced much later.

Fair enough.

I do have to say that some of this migration is a bit exaggerated. If my family (again, a branch, and a small one at that - 1/8th) didn't move, outside of being forced by the Ottoman Turks, over 700 years, why would I presume that people just freeflow moved everywhere? It makes no sense.

What Zrinski missed to mention is that those are Y-chromosome haplogroups. That means that you inherit certain haplogroup through paternal line(Y-chromosome). So the father and son have the same haplogroup, the same one that their male ancestors carried tens of thousands of years ago. This means that all male siblings share the same haplogroup.
So if new people come to a certain place and mix with the indigenous population, they will greatly influence their overall genetic makeup. The only prerequisites for this is that new people with different haplotypes have to come to their new homeland in a significant number, or have a significant population growth.

Also, you say the Croat concentrations correspond where they were located, thereby making an ethnic link, so to speak, but that doesn't apply to other groups.

This is just partially true.
Croats aren't genetically homogeneous either, we just have the highest reported I1b* frequency. The I1b frequency reaches its peak in the Mostar region, present day Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is inhabited mostly by Croats. In Croatia, the highest I1b frequencies were reported in Dalmatia region and around the capital. But this certain haplogroup isn't the only one in Croatia, so the other haplogroups (that make 55-60% of total distribution) have different frequencies in every Croatian region.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Bardyllis

What Zrinski missed to mention is that those are Y-chromosome haplogroups.

Heh...I've pointed it out several times.

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

The Albanian language has many Romance (Italian-Latin) and Slavic loanwords, but, curiously, very few loanwords form Greek, in spite of the fact that they lived in the vicinity of the Greek speaking area and were under the Greek cultural influence for a few thousands of years.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Bardyllis

Can you please explain the meanings of the certain names? I know what "Bardhyll" means, so skip that part.

Those names are taken from Greek sources, aren't Albanian folk names at all, and have been given only in recent history. As if, all of a sudden, Croats decided to name their children with names Tuga or Buga, or Serbs Andragast (Radgost?) to demonstrate their connection with early Slavic inhabitants of the Balkans, just because some ancient sources give those names in that form.

Teuta as well can be associated with Slavic TETA (aunt), Bardyllis with Slavic names BRADILO and BRADAN (from BRADA, beard), Agron with GORAN, Arben with RABAN, Yllka with JELKA etc. Not to mention the names omitted by our fellow participant: Bato, Bora, Besnik, Boyo, Dafina, Glavus, Graboš, Sokol. I mean, if we are to uncritically accept such weak offered connections, like that modern Albanian 'ranë' (sand) is connected to Latin 'arena', just because arenas were filled with sand, and to link 'old Illyrian' ULK (wolf) with modern Albanian UJË and to totally disregard Old-Slavonic V'LK, then who can stop anyone to claim 'direct Ilyyrian descendance'? Why can't we use such humorous methodology to 'prove' that Illyrians were in fact Hellenic people, akin to Greeks of Athens and Sparta? Why can't we use such humorous methodology to 'prove' that Illyrians were in fact the first Slavic settlers of the region? Or to connect them with proto-Bulgarians, or Vlachs, or to 'prove' that Illyrians and Thracians were the same etc. The fact that Albanians are the only nation in Balkans that don't have the "crucial starting point" of their history doesn't make them Illyrians per se. I mean, that confusion is best represented in this stereotypical statement that can be heard everywhere where this topic is being brought up:

Originally Posted by ScutariShkoder

It has been repeatedly and constanty proven by non-biased(non-Albanian,non-Macedonian,non-Greek,non-Serb)that Albanians are indeed Illyrians.

Originally Posted by ScutariShkoder

Now, Im not saying were direct-descendant pure Illyrians but you cant deny that the vast majority of Albanians are predominately Illyrian.

Originally Posted by ScutariShkoder

Overall Albanians are a mix of Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, and Pelasgian.

Statements made by the same person, in the same post and in the same order as presented:

1. First, Albanians are Illyrians. That's an axiom, a statement that doesn't need any further proof, and that is accepted undoubtly

2. Second, the person who says that Albanians ARE Illyrians, agrees that Albanians aren't direct descendants of ancient Illyrians, but rather that they are of their predominant descendance

3. Third, and finally, we agree that Albanians, who supposedly are Illyrians, are in fact a mixture of all the peoples that had ever lived in S-E Europe throughout history, except for those who still live there today: Greeks, Slavs and Turks. By saying 'Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian and Pelasgian', one overcompasses the area of modern states of Croatia, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Serbia, FYROM, northern Greece, Bulgaria, Romania and southern Hungary in the period of 1.000 years, while in the same time insisting in those silly theories of Albanain exclusive 'Illyrianism'.

Why can't we state that modern Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins are direct descendants of slavicized Illyrians, and found a primitive tribal ideology of rights over territories based on misinterpretations of blurry segments of ancient history?



Last but not least, it is also very interesting that such agitators have no problem with the idea of mixing of peoples, for as long as those people are 'ancient' and 'autochthonic'. Pelasgians, Illyrians, Dacians, Tribals, Dardanians - the more the merrier. But when it comes to historical times, when it comes to Slavs, Turkic tribes, Romance peoples, when it comes to Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks, Vlachs, Gypsies and Turks, any mention of mixing is a herecy. Modern Albanian is heavily influenced by Latin, Slavic and Turkic languages.

Originally Posted by Monolith

This is my old post, but I've just checked the English-Albanian dictionary:
Albanian

barkë-boat
valë-wave
rreze-ray

Croatian

barka-boat
val-wave
raža-ray

This actually doesn't prove anything, but I find it to be very peculiar because those words are almost completely equal to their Croatian counterparts. I can hardly be considered a linguistics expert, but it's still pretty weird.

I just wanted to say that the words you gave as an example have a correspondent in the Romanian language, which is probably of Daco-Roman origin (that is, a combination between Dacian/Thracian and Latin). Those words you gave as an example look like this in Romanian: barcă, val, rază. The problem is they're of Latin origin.
There are however a number of Romanian words that have a correspondent in Albanian an they are believed to be of Dacian origin.

sterp - sterile, infertile - Albanian: shterp (same meaning)
traistă - bag - Albanian trastë, trajstë, cf. Romanian synonym straiţă and Albanian strajcë
mire - bridegroom - Albanian mirë
groapă - hole, pit - Albanian gropë (same meaning)
cioară - crow - Albanian sorrë (same meaning)

Words like this (raging from 100 to 300) are common only to Romanian and Albanian, which suggests a common origin. Romanians have also been "accused" of being of Illyrian origin. It's unlikely, but not impossible. Honestly speaking, if Albanians are of Illyrian Thracian or Dacian origin is totally irrelevant, what's important is the linguistic goldmine that their language represents. All the languages of the ancient Balkan are virtually dead, except for Albanian.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by another-vlach

I just wanted to say that the words you gave as an example have a correspondent in the Romanian language, which is probably of Daco-Roman origin (that is, a combination between Dacian/Thracian and Latin). Those words you gave as an example look like this in Romanian: barcă, val, rază. The problem is they're of Latin origin.
There are however a number of Romanian words that have a correspondent in Albanian an they are believed to be of Dacian origin.

Yes, that certain words were introduced to Croatian and Albanian languages via Latin.

sterp - sterile, infertile - Albanian: shterp (same meaning)
traistă - bag - Albanian trastë, trajstë, cf. Romanian synonym straiţă and Albanian strajcë
mire - bridegroom - Albanian mirë
groapă - hole, pit - Albanian gropë (same meaning)
cioară - crow - Albanian sorrë (same meaning)

Thanks for the info.

How about ancient Thracian words?
Do you consider ancient Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian languages as descendants of one common branch?